ArtsEntertainment “Stranger Things 3”: Profound or Pandering? Issue 12
By COLTON SOSBE Staff Writer Our beloved, quirky ensemble of characters returned to us this past summer in the long-awaited third addition to the Stranger Things series. In 1985 Hawkins, Indiana, our diverse troupe of characters battles with new threats that vary in nature: puberty, Russians, maintaining friendships, otherworldly monsters and relationships. Released on Independence Day this past summer, the show resonated with millions across the globe. However, are these ratings justified? Is the new addition to the series a truly great example of television and what the series offers— a sub-mediocre attempt at grabbing audiences’ attention through nostalgia (as it’s so present in the modern era), or both? After two years, the show returned
August 28, 2019 Page 9
to entertain the masses once more. Netflix stated that 18.7 million people finished the entire new season within, remarkably, five days of release. Moreover, it managed to receive a rating of 90/100 from certified critics on Rotten Tomatoes. The Netflix original has become a phenomenon characterized by a charming and distinct ensemble of characters, the show’s accurate and alluring depiction of the 1980s and so much more. The third installment of the series does an excellent job of providing characters that truly captivate and enthrall audiences. Whether the focus of a scene is on the absolute power-duo of Steve and Dustin or the terrible and tormented Billy Hargrove, every character grips the audience with ease. Equally outstanding is the depiction of the setting: mid 1980s America. It isn’t particularly interesting in concept,
but in practice it is entirely opposite. The ambiance is absolutely stellar. The true-to-life references, from New Coke to “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” help to create a nostalgia-compelling environment; however, is this nostalgia, although effective, excessive? American cinema and television are currently in an era where reboots and spinoffs are running rampant, and the new season fits into this archetype quite well. Works like “The Lion King,” “Aladdin,” and “Pet Sematary” have recently been released (often with not much success) with the intent of pulling audiences in with “fresh” renditions of classics and providing an opportunity to reminisce about the past, and “Stranger Things 3” fits within this categorization quite well. The new season is over-saturated with references and callbacks to the 1980s, and it can certainly prove to be
overwhelming and forced at times. Without the superfluous, redundant reminiscence, the tone of the series would benefit greatly from the slightly more serious tone that it would provide (rather than the “over the top” approach). Regardless, “Stranger Things 3” was a highly entertaining and utterly fun addition to the series. Many of the idiosyncrasies that make the series special were still present though it certainly possessed a different tone that capitalized much more on the nostalgia of the audience in comparison to the previous two seasons. In the end, though it is a sublime exemplar of great television and the distinct personality of the “Stranger Things” series, the third season is simultaneously hindered somewhat by over-the-top nostalgic elements.
acteristics of the modern feminst movement, the truth of the matter is that there are many characteristics that are left out. “The Bold Type,” is designed to be a voice for women, but in reality, it is counterintuitive because it leaves out those who are not generally accepted in society, including transgender and plus-sized women. The premise of the show is that women should push the boundaries of who they were told to be by their parents and society. Although Jane, Kat and Sutton all push the limits through their professional and sometimes social decisions, the actresses’ choices and styling tells another story. Women are often put into a box of beauty and style. They must be petite or tall and skinny with no room for individuality or a less than “perfect” body. The show’s choice in actresses further reinforces this idea. This archetype is
simply not the reality of what it means to be a woman, nor does not align with the views of modern feminists. Body positivity is an integral part of the feminst ideal. It is about allowing women to be beautiful in whatever body they have, even if it’s not what is commonly seen or traditionally viewed as beautiful. This leads to the blatant exclusion of transgender women in any aspect of the show. Melora Hardin, a lead actress in “The Bold Type,” has spoken on several occasions supporting the inclusion of transgender women. While the show implies support, there are still no transgender women represented throughout the course of the show. Modern feminism is about the acceptance and support of all women despite race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability or non binary gender identity. The lack of representation of
transgender women undermines the message behind the feminist movement, and takes the media a step backward instead of a step forward. “The Bold Type” is meant to speak to the movement of women demanding acceptance in modern society, but the exclusion of certain groups of women undermines its intended goal. Every woman deserves representation and support from her peers. There has to be a change in the media representation of what a movement is and what it is expected to be. Feminsm is not just about supporting the beautiful, stylish journalist, but it is also about supporting the heavy queer girl from the mid-west, or your transgender classmate. All women deserve representation, and it’s time for the media to accept that. While this show attempts to display this truth, it ultimately fails.
“The Bold Type” fails to properly represent By SYDNEY MULLINS Staff Writer The Freeform show, “The Bold Type,” has been characterized as a show for modern feminists. Three women: Jane Sloan, Kat Edision and Sutton Brady explore their place in the world at a feminst magazine, “Scarlet.” The television drama is designed to highlight the feminist movement of the millenium, and in general, it does an acceptable job. Kat, a social media director, explores her bisexualiy with a Muslim artist. Jane, a reserved writer, discovers her voice in speaking out for women’s health and the victims of sexual assault and Sutton, a general assistant turned fashion stylist, follows her true calling of working in the fashion industry, prioritizing herself over her higher ranked boyfriend. While these are all important char-
